In a recent column published in the Italian daily, Libero (a translation of which has been posted at Rorate Caeli), Antonio Socci wrote concerning the now infamous, formerly secret, letter to Pope Francis that was signed by thirteen cardinals:
At the end of the letter there is also a dramatic warning and even if it is written in respectful language, it sounds an alarm, by saying, that, at the end of the road embarked on by Bergoglio, in imitation of the European Protestant churches, there [would be] “a collapse” in other words – the end of the Church.
The end of the Church…
This is quite a claim; one that invites debate on a number of important points.
For the sake of clarity, I take “the end of the road embarked on by Bergoglio” to mean a situation in the Church wherein, precise details aside, the civilly divorced and remarried will be invited to partake of the sacraments apart from confession, contrition and a firm purpose of amendment, and one that perhaps will even go so far as to affirm the relationships of homosexuals and those who are cohabitating.
If this were to take place, we might ask, would it truly represent the end of the Church?
I think not.
In any case, the better question, and one that perhaps speaks more directly to Socci’s point as presumably he was speaking of the kind of chaos that would invite a catastrophic collapse of the Church’s visible structures, is this:
How far will the protection of the Holy Ghost go in preventing Pope Francis from so infecting the Church with error?
In other words, will God allow this pope to succeed in an attempt to divorce so-called “pastoral practices” from the underlying doctrines from which they spring?
As I have stated in the past, I believe that the answer is yes, He will allow the pope to promote pastoral practices that undermine immutable doctrine.
Why do I believe this?
The infallibility of the pope as defined by the First Vatican Council pertains exclusively to those acts wherein “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” (cf First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter 4, Art. 9)
It is clear that this “Divine assistance” concerns only those things that the pope solemnly defines and pronounces as binding upon all of the faithful; criteria that simply does not fit the “pastoral” program described above.
A great example of the limits of this Divine assistance is the Second Vatican Council, the documents of which propose any number of false teachings that have had a devastating effect on the Church (e.g., the existence of multiple communities of salvation, the unity of Christians and Jews by the Cross of Christ, the “right” of religious liberty, to name a few.)
To say that it is possible for a pope to succeed in doing what Francis appears to desire, however, does not necessarily mean that it is probable.
That having been said, I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that it is highly likely that Pope Francis will abuse the unique power vested in his exalted office to affect precisely such an outcome, regardless of what takes place during the Synod proceedings.
His behavior over the entirety of his pontificate, in particular as it concerns the Extraordinary Synod, its interim relatio and its final relatio, as well as his conduct in manipulating the present Synod, stand as a powerful indicator of this pope’s determination to get what he wants.
All of which invites, as the comment section on this blog surely attests, heated debate concerning whether or not he is actually the pope!
I offer this simply to acknowledge the gravity of the present situation, not to invite further debate on the merits of arguments in favor of sedevacantism. Indeed, that horse has been beaten well beyond death in this space; and repetition of points already raised numerous times stand to benefit no one. (Indeed, it is getting tiresome, so please resist whatever urge you may feel to rehash arguments long since made elsewhere.)
As all here know, while I’m not a sedevacantist, I am sympathetic to those who, moved by a recognition of the severity of the present crisis, cannot help but question, and even theorize, that Jorge Bergoglio is not a true pope.
The difference between my view and the sedevacantist view lies in the distinction between objective and subjective heresy and how the transition from one to the other, as it concerns a pope, is made. (Again, this road has been well traveled here in the past.)
In any event, I think most readers here would readily admit that if a day were to come when it was made known to us in no uncertain terms (possibly only at our death) that Francis was ever but a pretender to the Throne, it would come as little surprise.
Let’s be honest; all indications are, and have been for some time, that His Humbleness, objectively speaking, does not possess the Catholic faith – so much so that future generations will undoubtedly look back on our day with wonder that anyone worthy of the name Catholic, save for sheer ignorance or perhaps invincible weakness, could possibly be so blind as to argue otherwise.
At this juncture in his utterly disastrous pontificate, the one idea that all of us can get behind is that the time has long since passed for Jorge Bergoglio to be publicly challenged and tried for the crime of modernism in general, and more directly relative to specific points of Catholic doctrine in particular.
As things stand today, there is more than enough reason for people of good will to harbor doubts as to the validity of the present pontificate. In fact, I think it is entirely likely that this same doubt exists even among some in the College of Cardinals.
The children of the Church, and indeed the citizens of the entire world, deserve to know if this man is an authentic Roman Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
In addition to Jorge Bergoglio’s obvious lack of commitment to the duties of the Petrine Office and the doctrines of the Catholic faith, doubt is further cast upon the validity of his pontificate by the mysterious circumstances surrounding the abdication of Benedict XVI.
This is yet another situation that cries out for examination in the plain light of day.
Readers may recall that Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli revealed in February 2014 that Benedict answered the question as to why he continues to dress in white in a letter saying:
I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made.
Seriously?
Benedict announced his intent to abdicate on February 11, 2013. The “moment of his resignation” did not take place until February 28th – more than two weeks later.
There are perhaps more black cassocks available per square mile in Rome than in any other location on earth, and yet we are supposed to accept the idea that one was unattainable over a period of seventeen days?
This certainly appears to me as if Benedict is telling those with ears to hear that there are certain crucially important details surrounding his departure that he is unable, for whatever reason, to disseminate freely.
Are there any shepherds in Rome intrepid enough to ask the questions raised by the extraordinary nature of these recent events – the abdication of Benedict, the disaster that is Francis, and the folly of the current Synod – for the benefit of the entire flock?
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Louie writes: “It is clear that this ‘Divine assistance’ concerns only those things that the pope solemnly defines and pronounces as binding upon all of the faithful; criteria that simply does not fit the ‘pastoral’ program described above.”
This view appears to conflict with the following statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on “Ecclesiastical Discipline”):
“From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law“.
The Encyclopedia goes on to illustrate this point with an example from the Church’s discipline regarding Communion, in this case the withholding of the chalice from the laity. This latter practise, the article continues, “has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel”.
So, the proposition that the Church’s discipline pertaining to Communion is “contrary to the Gospel” is, in this case at least, “trumped” by appeal to disciplinary infallibility.
If Bergoglio is accepted as pope, therefore, then it seems he may have the authority of the Church on his side.
Personally, however, I do not think the issue of Bergoglio’s legitimacy has been rigorously analyzed on these pages.
In this very excellent analysis of what is going on in the Catholic Church, Louie highlights the great sordid mysteries within the Vatican which seem to be unfolding daily right before our very eyes. The only Mysteries which a Holy Pontiff should present to the world are the awesome Mysteries of Our Faith surrounding the Life of Christ and His Glorious Passion and Death which accomplished our redemption. I believe we are now experiencing the dreadful Mysteries of Iniquity of which we have been warned. If the “end of the Church” means an end to the horrific postconciliar “church”, then I’m all for it. Let Tradition rise from the ashes!
You raise good questions, Louie. But when you ask about whether Francis is the authentic Roman Pontiff I think you mix apples with oranges.
–
I quote: “The children of the Church, and indeed the citizens of the entire world, deserve to know if this man is an authentic Roman Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.” Having a very bad pope and acknowledging that is a completely separate issue from not having a pope at all.
–
I hope we can separate these two things for a time because we do get bogged down in sede-land when there are more important issues to hash out.
–
Like: how long will Francis be allowed to do what he wants? Which bishop or cardinal will be the first to firmly, publicly say ‘enough’? If bishops and cardinals rally around the first brave man, what will this mean for unity in the Church? Will Francis live much longer, and from what pool will the next pope be drawn? Will the next pope have the courage to right the barque?
–
Thanks for bringing all these important questions to the fore, Louie
Excellent quotes as usual, Ox. Thank you.
.
There are stories circulating (at Rorate, for one, though I’ve not read beyond the headlines as of yet) indicating a push to allow individual bishops’ conferences to institute pastoral practices in the matters mentioned above as they see fit – something I predicted as the outcome of this Synodal charade long ago.
.
This would be the kind of “precise details aside” that I had in mind when writing of the end of Bergoglio’s road above.
.
This kind of scenario, wherein the pope simply refuses to properly regulate the discipline that is practiced within individual national dioceses (i.e., allows practices that undermine doctrine), would not seem to challenge the disciplinary infallibility described by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
.
This is especially evident, I think, given the national conferences’ utter lack of juridical standing and doctrinal authority, as well as the lack of any papal mandate binding the Universal Church to such practices.
.
Under these circumstances, it could not be properly said that the Church introduced into her discipline something opposed to the Divine law, but only that the pope is guilty of negligence.
Hey Louie, you are not crazy, and you are not a sedevacante? We have 2 popes alive, which means, you cannot be a sedevacante. the prophecy of blssd anne catherine emmerich, should help you out, along with all of the other prophecies, la salette, st. francis of assisi, ven arch bishop fulton sheen, saint pope pius X, 3rd secret of fatima,and many others. By the way, I think National catholic regsiter have lost their mine by inviting longnecker, dwight, to be posting op ed’s. what has happend to authentic catholic media?
The Motu Proprios regarding annulment should not be overlooked in this discussion. In particular canons 1675 and 1361 from the respective MPs state “the judge, before accepting the case, must have the certainty that the marriage has irreparably failed, in such a way that it is impossible to reestablish conjugal coexistence.” These canons appear to introduce the novelty of a “failed sacramental catholic marriage”. There are marriages that are null ab initio meaning they never come into existence, but there is no such thing as a sacramental catholic marriage that failed due to circumstances AFTER the marriage.
–
For a discussion of this issue and others raised by the MPs, see, for example:
–
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351147?eng=y
–
It can be argued that the aforementioned canons touch, and contradict, infallible teaching of the Church that valid sacramental catholic marriages are indissoluble.
History tells us that this kind of thing can only be known, and made right, after the death of the pope in question. No one in the history of the Church has ever brought forth the position that a pope was not a pope – outside the obvious ones where cabals elected usurpers – even in this circumstance there was ONE pope who was the right one all along, waiting for time and sanity to return.
–
What we DO see in history are plenty of prelates and faithful theologians who challenged the teachings or preachings of popes. This is the kind of thing we’re waiting for now. Who’s going to speak out?
This really gets to the core of this whole matter. Can Francis know what he is doing? He seems to be acting with no thought to canon law or consequences. This is not the way popes act is it? Can he see what will happen? Does he WANT to reform the Church in this way?
My comment was in reply to Dumb_ox above.
Bergoglio is not the problem. Vatican II is the problem. to quote:
—
“—deviation from the Catholic Faith must not be seen merely as a “Francis phenomenon,” but has its roots very firmly in Vatican II.–”
—
Francis, a Modernist, (so declared unequivocally even by +Fellay ) is doing exactly what he said he’d do-teach the Modernist non-Catholic ecumenical religion borne of the Second Vatican Council. to quote:
—
“–there is nothing in Francis which has not been previously found in Vatican II.–”
—
http://inveritateblog.com/2014/09/01/francis-is-not-the-problem/
—
to quote:
—
“–The sedevacantists must prove that in fact Vatican II and its reforms do constitute a new and false religion, and that therefore the hierarchy which has promulgated it cannot have the authority from Christ to rule the Church. The sedevacantists must also point out that the Vatican II “popes” are guilty of public heresy, which can be manifested not only in word but also in deed, that is, through heretical practices.
The sedevacantist position, therefore, rises or falls on the evidence of deviation from the true faith in Vatican II and its reforms, as well as in the “popes’ who have promulgated them.–“
Francis-the Destroyer
http://www.novusordowatch.org/francis-destroyer-english.pdf
de Maria, I agree. Francis is not the CAUSE of the crisis. He is the PRODUCT of the crisis which began more than 50 years ago!
I cannot agree with de Maria. Vatican II is not the cause. Most of us are a product of Vatican II, but we have the Faith. Despite all the crazy priests, religious and bishops, we know the truth. The truth is there for anyone who wants it and seeks it.
and I should add, accepts it.
There is always the possibility that you have been denied the grace of discernment.
http://henrymakow.com/2015/10/Pope-Francis-Rages-Against-Conservative-Cardinals.html
The truth of the situation is simple for me. If the ‘bishop of Rome’ spouts heresy–and he is already doing so in this synod, one has only to read the Instrumentum Laboris– then he loses his papal authority. If the Church suffers in confusion, which it is now and will be even more so before this present pontiff is out of office, I have only to hold to the fullness of the Faith as I have been taught it so many years ago. I am blessed to know my Faith. God asks me to live it. I cannot solve the present madness in the institutional structure of Roman Catholicism, but I can live my faith each day in Christ and share it with others as the opportunity arises, and it does arise. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, that means the believers in the fullness of the Faith as it has been taught for 2, 000 years. Most likely the true Church will go underground as has been predicted so many times. Bergoglio is no valid pope. The evidence is overwhelming. He is the tool and front man of the masonic one world order and he is making a new church based on secular values. The present synod bespeaks just how distorted and perverted the institutional structure of the Catholic Church has become. It cannot be fixed because there is no sincerity at all in what is happening at the synod. The liberals are running around like little, lying devils. That is what they are and they will get their way because what it would take to stop them is much too costly for dignified prelates. There are many ways to be a martyrs, but the present bishops, for the most part, are not prepared to endure such self sacrifice.
Pray without ceasing on behalf of other men…For cannot he that falls rise again?
St Ignatius of Antioch
The statements that “The infallibility of the pope as defined by the First Vatican Council pertains exclusively to those acts wherein “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” (cf First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter 4, Art. 9)” and also that ” It is clear that this “Divine assistance” concerns only those things that the pope solemnly defines and pronounces as binding upon all of the faithful; criteria that simply does not fit the “pastoral” program described above” are in error.
–
Firstly, infallibility is not limited to the Solemn Magisterium, but includes the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium also.
–
Secondly, the Holy Ghost protects the Pope from teaching any error, or anything harmful, or detrimental to the salvation of souls to the Universal Church. The Catholic Church cannot teach error.
–
Clergy Review, April 1935: Canon George D. Smith, Ph.D., D.D., was already drawing attention to a misunderstanding which has worsened among traditional Catholics since Vatican II:
–
“What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.”
–
Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.: By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy [in 1870], it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of. It is as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognised; we might almost say as if the definition of the infallibility of solemn judgments made these henceforth the exclusive method by which the Sovereign Pontiff was to put forward the rule of faith. (…) The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.
–
Denzinger 1683: Even limiting oneself to the submission made by the act of divine faith, this could not be restricted to those things that have been defined by the express decrees of ecumenical councils and by the decrees of this See, but must be extended also to what is passed on as divinely revealed by the Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church spread over the world…
–
Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.”
–
Infallible Ex Cathedra Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, 22: The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863. CONDEMNED
–
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.” Note: Pope Leo says “any point of doctrine” which would include all doctrines of the Magisterium and not just dogmatized doctrines of the extraordinary Magisterium.
–
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “…But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.” Note: To reject “one point” of divinely revealed truth, which is, as Vatican 1 says, all teachings universal and ordinary and extraordinary magisterial teachings, is to reject “all faith.” In other words, to reject one point of doctrine is to literally become apostate. How often do we hear that unless the pope defines a dogma on faith and morals as pope, we as Catholics may resist or call into question all those other teachings? Is this not what all non-sedevacantist traditionalists say and believe? Well, according to the infallible teaching of the Church, this is a lie.
–
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: “Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
–
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 24: “In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.”But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
–
And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff.
–
Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For,otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.”
–
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, nn. 103-104: “… or even that they [the faithful] must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.”
–
Vatican Council, Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church of Christ, Chapter 3, July 18, 1870; Denzinger 1831: If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.
–
The theologian Van Noort : The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is universal.
–
It is universal both in regard to place and to the business involved. It is universal in regard to place because it extends to all the churches spread throughout the entire world; in regard to the business involved, because it extends not only to matters of faith and morals (the ecclesiastical magisterium) but also to the discipline and government (rule-imperium) of the entire Church. Finally, it is universal in regard to persons, because no Christian is exempt from it.
–
Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912], p. 695: When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey – that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope.
–
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua, 1885: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
–
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 20, 1950: Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” [Lk 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.
Insofar as the ‘collapse’ of the Church and it’s life of Faith, I recall Our Lord’s own rhetorical question regarding true Faith in those times immediately preceding His return:
“However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8
Well said once again Barbara Jensen.
Francesco dAssisi,
I was speaking only of Bergoglio who was ordained in 1969 when the Catholic Church “went crazy”. Of course, if he had a true Catholic sense, he would have said “I’m out of here”. Obviously, he didn’t and doesn’t.
Vatican II already did what this Synod proposes to do, just in another area.
Vatican II did it primarily with EENS. That is, radically changed the practice of the Church while supposedly keeping the Doctrine of EENS on the books (EENS being Outside the Church there is No Salvation of course). Thus, while at one time at least saying that the doctrine hasn’t changed, we have a protestant inspired new mass, we have today’s ecumenism, we have Assisi I, II, and III, we have Francis calling some protestant heretics his “brother bishops” and saying Jews still have a valid working covenant with God and can be saved while rejecting Christ. After 50 years, no one but the most die hard traditionalists still hold EENS in the same way as its always been held.
What V2 was to EENS, this synod is to the indissolubility of marriage. Been there done that. The conservatives won’t “win” this because they’re claims that “we can’t separate practice from doctrine” are 50 years too late and are not being applied to the entire spectrum of Catholic teachings.
In any case, let the modernists go for it all. Maybe in the midst of this madness, the “conservatives” will come to see that traditionalists were right all along.
But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned [Gal 2:11]
St. Paul condemned St. Peter to his face. Therefore it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff. Therefore it follows that he may need to be resisted when he errs, as St. Peter did. Therefore you exaggerate the scope of the infallible ordinary and universal magisterium and thus are prevented from properly interpreting the quotes you posted.
All of those quotes presuppose the disciplines in question are actually catholic. They were a means of defending practice from the very things that happened at and after V2. Using these to defend the novelties of V2 and the post-conciliar churchmen is erroneous. The faithful have a right and a duty to resist harmful novelties, even if they come from the pope or an “angel of light.”
Faith trumps authority every time. These novelties aren’t authoritative, they are abuses of authority.
Welcome to the Great Apostasy as written about in 2 Thessalonians.
Good points. The ignorant native on the island is now ready for a divorce…excuse me, an “annulment of desire.”
dear John314,
In that to which you refer here, His Majesty had not yet bestowed the Primacy upon Peter. To put it in everyday terms, Peter’s Reign had not yet begun.
dear CraigV ( & all, )
You may be interested in this, IMHO very relevant to subject of marriage within your comment: hope you enjoy
–Fr. Selway: “St. Joachim”–16 mins.
—
http://mhtseminary.libsyn.com/sermon-st-joachim-by-fr-selway
Agree…the current teachings of the false shepherds is not unanimous, nor universal, it opposes scripture and tradition, is in conflict with centuries of previous teaching, and has nothing whatever to do with salvation. Pope Pius X statement “there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope” is hyperbole, a personal opinion given in an address. This idolatry of the Pope as if he were a God has got to stop. He has no authority to make up new teachings based strictly on his own opinion. The Pope’s job is to preserve and protect the teaching of the Faith, which the current occupier of the Vatican has so obviously failed to do.
Excellent post.
Dear Barbara,
Priests close to the Pope have asserted that he does want to reform the Church in such a way that for the next three or four hundred years (if God so wills), the changes will be irreformable.
Read verses three and four over and over.
[1] Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; [2] But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’ s conscience, in the sight of God. [3] And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, [4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. [5] For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus.
Excellent collection of passages there Salvemur. It is precisely this false idea, as you point out, that “its not ex-cathedra so its really not binding”, which has given these heretics a free pass for so long. In short…if you accept that vatican 2 was Catholic….then you are obliged to adhere to it.
I do not know who the pope is. Sedevacantism makes sense to me as well as the arguments against that position. So, I do not know what position is correct.
I don’t think BXVI can just retire like any old secular CEO. That didn’t make sense from day 1 because our Holy Church is not a secular organization. So, maybe he wasn’t pope to begin with. I don’t know.
Also, Francis won’t live in the papal housing nor wear the papal shoes. Sometimes I wonder if he is prevented by God from entering the threshold or touching the shoes rather than just rejecting them under a false claim of humility.
J.M.J.
With all the talk of possible sedeVACANTism floating around regarding
Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ pontificate, I’d say a more accurate
possibility is sedeBENEDICTOPLENism — Benedict is still Pope, having “resigned”
under duress while leaving a loophole that will later prove Francis invalid.
And ya (as we say in Ohio), there appear not to be any shepherds intrepid enough (perhaps they too are diabolically disoriented or maybe simply uninformed, both of which I find hard to believe) to openly talk of the abovementioned possibility.
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
PS Keep up the good work, Louie, it is much appreciated! God bless you!
I just noticed this week that the papal crest is not embroidered onto the bottom of the papal waist wrap that hangs down his left side on Mr. Humble’s outfit. (Is it called a stole?) PE Benedict XVI, however, still wears his stole with the crest on his papal outfit. I am strongly leaning to BXVI being the “true” pope and Jorge being the “destroyer” as predicted by St. Francis’ prophesy.
Point of clarification. You misunderstand or you are giving a straw man argument. No one has said “its not ex-cathedra so its really not binding.” The discussion hinges on the proper scope of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
“No one has said ‘its not ex-cathedra so its really not binding'”. Where have you been….thats EXACTLY what most of the ignorazi think. The teachings of vatican 2 HAVE been set forth as to be believed by the universal Church…THAT clearly means that if you believe vatican2 is Catholic then its teachings HAVE to be infallible (as all of the quotes Salvemur posted lend credence to). Of course its NOT infallible because the vatican 2 council was a protestant sham….but most “Catholics” regard vatican 2 as Catholic…and therefore they become hypocrites when they reject its teachings.
I know the S word isnt welcome here, but if in fact that is the reality, Fr ratzinger possibly being a pope and resigning from a post he never occupied to begin is a non-argument. In short, if jorge truly wasnt a pope, then neither was Fr. ratzinger.
You’re mistaken. This episode recorded in Scripture happened after the Resurrection and Penticost.
The fact of the makes is that when a pope contradicts the teaching of the church, it’s that individual (a Ratzinger, a Bergolio, etc.) that disagrees with the pope, i.e. Peter and all his predecessors. Yes, even a man who holds the office of Peter can disagree with Peter…to his own eternal peril.
Yep. Not to mention the “Bishop dressed in white” confusion mentioned in the vision of the Third Secret of Fatima.
I’ll have to go back and read it again, but I think it mentioned both the pope, and a bishop dressed in white that they thought might be the pope. Very strange, and alas, the words of Mary that explain the vision have been suppressed.
There is no doubt that a pope can be a bad pope in a moral sense….but when a pope sets forth error as part of the magisterium (which is what all of the pretenders have done) than THAT is an entirely different issue. Yes, he will be damned…but so will all of those who follow him. This is why heresy is a much more serious offense than even the worst mortal sin.
In April I transcribed this interesting exchange between Fr. Malachi Martin and Art Bell. Fr. Martin was trying to reveal what he could about the Third Secret without breaking his oath. I believe it’s from the long version of his last interview with Art Bell in 1998 and it’s the last question:
Q: Father, is there any circumstance under which you can imagine that you would feel free to reveal the Secret?
A: Yes, yes, if there was a total collapse of the Center.
Q: Then you anticipate that don’t you?
A: I anticipate that as a possibility, Art. I can’t, you know, I, I, can’t predict, I anticipate it as a possibility, certainly, yes.
I really thought this was interesting. Is he implying that once the Secret is fulfilled publicly that he would consider himself no longer bound by the oath? I don’t know but it’s a possibility. I also wonder if by “the center” he meant the papacy or the city of Rome?
Cannon Roca the excommunicated priest, satanist, illuminati or whatever he was, predicted:
“There is a sacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation … The Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal caesar is a host [victim] crowned for the sacrifice.”
J.M.J.
Rich,
1.) Regarding your first sentence: ya, if the papal throne’s been vacant since the late 1950’s, then ain’t no one been pope for more’n half a century. However,I refer you to John Salza’s on-line articles on sedevacantism that show that such a scenario is not plausible.
2.) In the interests of preserving the integrity of logic: your second sentence declares inverted causality. How does Jorge not being pope now mean that Ratzinger wasn’t pope in the past? (Even if you reverse the order, it is still not clear how Ratzinger’s non-papacy would make Jorge not pope. There has to be a cause greater than either one of these men to make them both non-popes.)
Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!
Of course there’s a reason why both of them are non-popes:. Jorge prescribes to the same heresies that ratzinger did, which is the reason why neither could be a pope.
Ive read salza ad nauseum….he doesnt get it, like most dont. The Church cannot promote heresy and if it does, then it obviously cannot be the Church. Maybe someday salza will understand this.
Georgianne, here is a specific article that can give a clearer view of what Holy Mother Church teaches on these matters:
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=103&catname=10
–
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/
Rich, excellent yep – Peter gathered the excellent collection.
–
And wanted to add to a few of those commenting:
–
” “All of those quotes presuppose the disciplines in question are actually catholic.” They certainly do and in those days the disciplines certainly were. “Using these to defend the novelties of V2 and the post-conciliar churchmen is erroneous.” Far worse than erroneous, to use these Catholic doctrines to defend VII and the conciliar popes would be satanic. You seem to have forgotten that I am a sedevacantist. Vatican II was a false council and the conciliar popes are anti-popes. In terms of Catholic doctrine they are anathema….There is no idolatry of the Pope in Catholicism. However, good Catholics submit to the teaching of a true Pope, as explained in various of the magisterial quotes. The Pope preserves the deposit of Faith and passes it on to his successor inviolate and without novelty.”
– and
“These quotes simply to illustrate that Papal Infallibility extends to both the Solemn and Ordinary Magisteriums. The quotes are self explanatory. I neither exaggerated their scope, nor interpreted them beyond their relevance to the magisteriums…Nothing of this has anything to do with legitimately resisting a Pope in error…There is an interesting exposition of Gal.2:11 on page1537 of the Douay-Rheims Bible by Fr. Haydock.”
dear rich,
Yes, submission to the Roman Pontiff, necessary for salvation, is core to the sedevacantist position. With regard to Salza (and nausea) he continually attempts to apply secular law to ecclesiastical law. This is a problem, to say the least.
hi, 3littleshepherds1,
Fr. Martin was a friend of ours. An interesting man, with a multi-faceted personality. He valued his time very little & was exceedingly generous in spending time with any Catholic who wished to consult him.
hi, CraigV,
The *application* of the word condemned confused me. In talking with Catholics about this, I find often we’re talking about apples & oranges. If you’d like to discuss this more, we can in the Forum.
—
To all–
You know, I just want to mention here something which I’ve seen over time-since Louie very much welcomed sedevacantists to comment here & Mr. V. also requested that extended discussion vis a vie sedevacantism be brought over to the Forum. So, what I’ve seen is that more than one commenter has seemed somewhat threatened by this suggestion, as if this invitation to the forum was some kind of rude & forceful challenge. No. Just a friendly invitation, which one can respond to or ignore, to continue charitable discourse according to the request of Mr. V. That’s all.
hi, rich,
As you know, this matter is discussed very briefly in the piece on Frankenchurch-also addresses somewhat what CraigV raises above-which is often raised. (BTW-not trying to be rude, dear CraigV, just putting it within this comment.)
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70
—
Addressed in more context in the “How to Tell Aunt Helen” disussion on the position on you tube-easily searched.
Well put.
I’ve been thinking about this too. How come we have priests like those in the FSSP and the SSPX? How come we have Father Campos? How come we have Father Rodriquez?
–
It must be grace. He who has ears to hear… – yes but God opens the ears of those He knows will correspond to His grace. All time is present to Him so there is no guessing for Him. He knows.
If Roca was all you say he was, this quote must have been wishful thinking!
Dear mpoulin, well said. This misunderstanding or difference in understanding of the ordinary universal magisterium has been pointed out many times here. God bless.
For the despondent, every day brings trouble;
for the happy heart, life is a continual feast.
Proverbs 15:15
This issue is always ignored and straw men repeatedly erected.
Thank you.
I agree with you. The real catholic faith can only enter the Vatican after these imposters lose their power. In this regard I am hoping that bergolio gets everything he wants in this synod, which include defining homosexual relationships and co-habitation as praisworthy, and allowing divorced and.remarried to receive the novus ordo wafer. If and when this occurs many catholics of good will may recognize that theyve been following a non-catholic, imposter church
de Maria
Exactly. The whole part about being submissive to the pope seems to have escaped many. We sedes reject francis because he is a heretic and we know he cannot be pope so we do NOT reject the pope, we only reject the interlopers…trads reject him because they know he is a heretic but yet they still acknowledge him as “pope” and therefore reject the pope. The seeds to this mass confusion were already sown long before the vatican 2 council took place (bella dodd anyone?).
Makes you want to throw up! (I apologize for the crudeness of my remark, but I just couldn’t help it!
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-marx-hosting-extravagent-dinners-for-synod-fathers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2015-10-17%2016:49:01
“Have you ever noticed rocks in the sea, beaten by the tempest? A furious wave dashes against the rock, another and yet another does likewise, yet the rock is unmoved. But look at it after
the storm has subsided, and you will see that the flood has but served to wash and purify it of the defilement it had contracted during the calm. Hereafter I wish you to be as a rock.
A wave dashes against you? Silence! It assails you ten, a hundred, a thousand times? Silence! Say, at most, in the midst of the storm, “My Father, my Father, I am all Thine! Oh dear,
O’ sweet will of God, I adore Thee !”
St Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)
Using false freemasonic notions of “religious liberty” and Christian unity. Lord, save us.
He cannot have the authority of the Church when he goes against the Deposit of Faith. The authority can only apply to that which is in accordance with the Deposit of Faith – Tradition, Scripture and authentic Magisterium – which cannot change.
The MPs are necessarily invalid null and void for being contrary to the Desposit of Faith and Natural Moral Law regarding marriage and its essential properties.
EM, this is lovely, and from St. Paul of the Cross it is real and honest. Don’t you think it’s one thing to BE the rock upon which the waves batter, and withstand, to emerge cleansed and peaceful but another thing to see Peter The Rock being submerged and taking many with him, that calls for more than silence?
Dear Barbara,
Yes indeed …pray God our Faith will strengthen , withstanding all batterings
Feast day reflections of St Paul of the Cross
When you are alone in your room, take your crucifix, kiss its five wounds reverently, tell it to preach to you a little sermon, and then listen to the words of eternal life that it speaks to your heart;
listen to the pleading of the thorns, the nails, the precious Blood. Oh, what an eloquent sermon!
St Paul of the Cross (1694-1775)
Yep. Many remain confused trying to find Christ in belial.
–
(Remnant wouldn’t post this comment in reponse to another commrnting lamenting God’s abanonment) …God certainly has abandoned the Novus Ordo Institution.
–
However, there is no biblical prophecy that suggests God could ever abandon faith, as in one who is faithful, most certainly never His True Catholic Church. The ‘yoke’ of faith is ‘sweet’ and the ‘burden’ is ‘light’. Christ is with His Bride. The real despair comes from being blind to where and what is the Catholic Church. It is not the buildings that have been taken over by belial, where confessionals are storage cupboards and altars have been smashed for scrap; where the poison of belial that is Roncalli and Sons (the Novus Ordo Institution, the ‘revelation’ of which is VII) has seeped into every element, human and otherwise.
–
The Catholic Church is and will always remain outside of belial. This means, that unless we have access to priests of the Roman Rite who hold the Faith of the successors of Peter and abstain from inserting the names of heresiarchs during Mass, we still have the ‘rosary and the sign of the Cross’ as Sr Lucia predicted in terms of ‘visible’ geographical Church with us. But Christ was with Peter in prison and St Athanasius in the desert. One with the faith is never abandoned. And, as the gates of hell cannot prevail, somewhere on this sad planet there are visible holy Catholic and Apostolic priests of the Roman Rite who hold together in the unity of the unadulterated one Faith of the successors of Peter, missionize as has been done for two thousand years, and who abstain from inserting the names of heresiarchs during Mass. We hope and pray that one day soon they have the name of Pius XII’s successor to offer, after this long and trying interregnum.
I feel like I’m trapped in that movie Invasion of The Body Snatchers !!!!
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/pope-francis-is-now-effectively-at-war-with-the-vatican-if-he-wins-the-catholic-church-could-fall-apart/
Weirdly he is at war with a Novus Ordo that mistakes itself for Catholic. The war against the post-Pius XII Catholic Masses went so smoothly they offered themselves up to their Modernist anti-pope conquerors with enthusiasm and continue to do so en masse. What’s going on in Rome right now is the natural progression of Protestant sects = heresy is the foundation of schism (the VII heresy resulted in the schismatic Novus Ordo). Schism, secession and perpetual disunity of thought and worship.
–
If we open our eyes we can see this plain as day – the Novus Ordo Institution possesses no more Catholicity than the Eastern Orthdox, or the Anglicans.
–
We we have the free will to shut our eyes to truth in this life, but, eventually death will intervene and open the eyes of our souls whether we will it or not.
–
http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/articles.html